![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
22·1,877 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Not enough? Note that 65 = 2^0 + 2^6 and 65^510 = 1 mod 511. Still not enough? 72 = 2^3 + 2^6 and 72^510 = 1 mod 511. I am sure that one could find additional counter-examples. There was no reason to believe that an integer with Hamming weight 2 could not be a false witness to Mersenne numbers. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Jan 2010
germany
2·13 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Jan 2010
germany
2·13 Posts |
![]() Quote:
OK. my fault. I forgotten to mention that mersenne Numbers are Numbers of the Form n = 2^{p}-1 with: The variable p is prime !!!!! If the mersenne number Mersenne Number is called Mersenne Prime. Your example with mod 511 -> 9 is not prime. -> 511 is not a mersenne number. And 255 = -> 8 is also not prime -> 255 is not a mersenne number Last fiddled with by sascha77 on 2011-03-04 at 16:44 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
11101010101002 Posts |
![]() Quote:
spread throughout the literature that a Mersenne Number is of the form 2^n-1 for any n . Quote:
if I look hard enough. It isn't worth my time. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Dec 2008
you know...around...
32×5×19 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Jan 2010
germany
110102 Posts |
![]()
I noticed that my first post in this topic was mathematically not detailled enough and I forgot to mention some assumptions.
(Especially that p must always be prime) For this reason I redefine my previous post: A.) let n be prime with n=2^p-1: if -------------------------------------------------------------------- B.) Let n be not prime with n=2^p-1 (But p is prime): B.1.) If you choose B.2.) If you choose when the congruence is also always true. B.3) But for the other combinations of is always false. (A) (B.1) and (B.2) can easily be proven. But (B.3) is hard to prove. Therefore is (B.3) my conjecture. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ************************************************** Proof of A: This is trivial, because A follows directly from the "Fermatsche Satz". ************************************************** ************************************************** proof of B.1: This is because 2 has always the order -> for every Because: Now we look at the variable -> for every Therefore: when you choose ************************************************** ************************************************** proof of B.2: If you choose then -> ************************************************** Last fiddled with by sascha77 on 2011-03-04 at 19:50 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Dec 2008
you know...around...
32·5·19 Posts |
![]()
Deployed some Pari code:
forprime(p=67,83,print(p);n=2^p-1;for(a=2,999,for(b=0,a-1,x=2^a+2^b;c=x;for(i=1,p-2,c=(c^2*x)%n);c=(c^2)%n;if(c==1&&(a-b)%p<>0,print("counterexample found: a="a", b="b))))) [The forprime-range is to be set manually after every Mp=prime, e.g. next it would be forprime(p=97,103,...] No counterexample for a<1000, b<a, p<71 yet. I would guess there are likely to be counterexamples (e.g. Carmichael numbers with Hamming weight 2), but they're probably hard to find. Last fiddled with by mart_r on 2011-03-04 at 19:47 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Jan 2010
germany
1A16 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Thanks !!! Yes it could be that there exist a counterexample. But nobody knows this until it is found. ;-) A hint: You only need to test a and b to the size of p. this means: test a for a<=p and b for b<=p Because of the modulo-operation these values of 2^a repeat after p-steps. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Dec 2008
you know...around...
32·5·19 Posts |
![]()
Fair enough.
So, no counterexamples for p<=353. Stopping here. Someone with a faster PC, i.e. with more than one core, could check further. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 | |
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
1D5416 Posts |
![]() Quote:
to 2^p-1 and integers with Hamming weight 2) and hoping that the intersection isn't empty. There are no analytic tools available to approach the problem because [AFAIK] there is almost nothing known about how false witnesses are distributed mod P. It is easy to get a sharp counting function for weight-2 integers up to B , but their distribution is clearly not uniform. Heuristics based on probabilistic methods are likely to fail, because the sets involved are not uniformly distributed. Even if the result is true, it has almost no applicability anyway. LL will be faster. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
10,061 Posts |
![]()
Unsurprisingly, there were no counterexamples up to p<1450.
A modified one-liner forprime(p=2,3000,if(!isprime(n=2^p-1),print(p);for(a=1,p-1,for(b=0,a-1,x=2^a+2^b;c=x;for(i=3,p,c=(c^2*x)%n);if((c^2)%n==1,print("found: a="a", b="b)))))) can run without need to skip prime Mp's and can run forever lazily... ____ A bit faster: forprime(p=2,3000,if(!isprime(n=2^p-1),print(p);for(a=1,p-1,for(b=0,a-1,x=(2^a+2^b)%n;x2=(x^2)%n;c=x;for(i=1,p,c=(c^2)%n);if(c==x2,print("found: a="a", b="b)))))) ...Is there a better mod exponent in Pari? Mod(2^a+2^b,n)^n ? Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2011-03-08 at 00:09 Reason: (not a master of Pari, I am) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Number of distinct prime factors of a Double Mersenne number | aketilander | Operazione Doppi Mersennes | 1 | 2012-11-09 21:16 |
A conjecture on a new property of Mersenne primes | Thiele | Math | 18 | 2010-05-23 05:35 |
Number of Factors for a Mersenne Number | kurtulmehtap | Math | 12 | 2010-05-03 14:02 |
Curious property of Mersenne numbers. | arithmeticae | Lounge | 5 | 2008-10-27 06:15 |
A property of prime Mersenne numbers under LLT | T.Rex | Math | 12 | 2005-09-12 07:56 |